Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Other Measures) Bill 2011 [2012] deals with a subject that has been very much on the coalition's mind in recent times—namely, the issue of quality and standards in post-secondary education in Australia. The opposition has a very clear and unequivocal position regarding quality and standards. When speaking recently to the Australian Technology Network of Universi­ties, I remarked that in the pursuit of expan­sion and increased participation we cannot allow our university sector to meander into mediocrity. We simply cannot sacrifice quality for quantity. It is quite clear that if the increase in student participation at university leads to lower standards then everyone is a loser: students whose degrees are devalued, the economy which gets underqualified workers and our higher education system itself, whose domestic and international reputation becomes tarnished. In an equation where resources, participation and standards are all variables, the coalition considers standards to be non-negotiable. If we cannot at least maintain the current standards and quality, nothing else—no other achievement, no other goal reached—really matters. We simply cannot compromise the edge that our higher education system gives us in educating our own workforce here in Australia. We cannot compromise the desira­bility of Australia as a top destination for hundreds of thousands of international students.

While my remarks related to universities, they are just as applicable to vocational education and training. Vocational education and training is another industry undergoing significant expansion and change. Trade skills are essential to guaranteeing the future prosperity of our country, including to ensure that we can take full advantage of the demand from our natural resources. Last but not least, VET is a very important export industry, generating billions of dollars in annual income as our providers provide skills and education for hundreds of thous­ands of students, mostly from Asia. That is why it is essential that our VET system continues to deliver quality service, both for domestic and for international students.

For this reason the coalition, this time last year, supported the creation of a national regulator for the VET sector, just as earlier the coalition supported the creation of TEQSA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. If anything, the VET sector is much more in need of a national regulator than our universities, which, in general, both manage themselves well and are well managed under existing institutional arrangements. The VET sector, however, has been much in the news over the past few years—sadly, in some cases, not for the right reasons, ranging from a spate of collapses of VET institutions to many worrying reports of violence directed against overseas students undertaking VET courses in Australia.

The federal government was slow to act on these issues and, when it did, it did so in a haphazard manner, characteristic of the government's general approach to post-secondary education. The coalition is, in principle, in favour of measures that seek to ensure that our VET sector is more transpar­ent and accountable and functions in accordance with high standards of quality. However, we continue to look closely at specific proposals put forward by the government, because we know that good intentions are one thing but good policy and good implementation are quite another. As far as this Labor government is concerned, the twain shall rarely meet.

The recent creation of a national VET regulator and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency requires an update to the legislation to enable effective informa­tion and disclosure provisions. The bill currently before the Senate will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide that the minister retains the power to decide an application for approval as a higher education provider, although the required time frame may have expired; require VET providers to notify the minister in writing of events which may affect their ability to comply with quality and accounta­bility requirements; provide for the authoris­ation of certain uses and disclosures of information; allow the secretary to revoke or vary any determination made to pay an advance to a VET provider in certain circum­stances; clarify that a VET provider must provide statistical and other informa­tion, although an approved form of provision has not been specified; and make administrative arrangements relating to the assessment of an individual's Higher Education Loan Program debt.

All this is well and good in principle, and the coalition will not oppose this bill. However, we have concerns about the lack of important detail in this legislation that have not so far been assuaged by the government. In particular, we note the amendment clause 25(2) which imposes an obligation on VET providers to notify the minister in writing of certain events that may significantly affect their ability to continue as an approved VET provider. While we accept that there are similar requirements, for example, within the context of the aged-care industry and the bill does mirror a clause in the National VET Regulator Bill, we seek an assurance that in the first instance the department would work cooperatively with the provider to address any areas of noncom­pliance. In addition, I note that the bill does not specify the preferred documentation the department may seek from providers when the department requests statistical data. This may impose unnecessary administrative requirements on providers. While the coalition is all in favour of strengthening quality and standards, we do not want to see education providers strangled by red tape. Education is far too important economically for Australia. We cannot afford to take another hit to our longstanding and otherwise good international reputation as a provider of very high quality educational services.

As I know you are aware, Madam Acting Deputy President, education is Australia's fourth largest export after iron and coal and only last year was pushed from its traditional third position by the rise in the price of gold. It is also Australia's largest export services industry. A quarter of a million overseas students who attend Australia's schools, VET institutions and universities inject billions of dollars into the Australian economy as well as billions directly into the educational institutions that they attend, thus cross-subsidising the teaching, the infrastructure and learning opportunities for our domestic students. In addition to economic benefits, there are also many intangible and some­times immeasurable benefits as overseas students build often lifelong friendships and connections with their Australian colleagues, add to the international reservoir of goodwill towards our country and, in some cases, stay here in Australia to become residents and ultimately citizens, enriching Australia with their knowledge, expertise and hard work.

Australia has for years, if not for decades, been considered a world-class education provider for international students. Consider­ing our small population, we have managed to attract more overseas students per capita than just about any of our overseas competi­tors. We have built a solid reputation as a welcoming destination offering a great lifestyle as well as excellent quality eduction services for overseas students. But it is fair to say that over the last few years our reputation and our position as the world leader in international education have been under threat from a range of factors.

While we cannot control the international economic situation or the growth in overseas competition to our educational providers or, indeed, even the value of the Australian dollar, which all impact on our competitive­ness as a post-secondary education provider, we certainly are duty-bound to do everything that is in our control in order to rebuild our somewhat frayed reputation and to show the world that Australia remains an attractive destination for international students, offering them quality as well as a friendly educational experience. We certainly hope that this bill will contribute towards that end and we will watch its implementation very carefully to ensure that it does just that.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Other Measures) 2011 [2012]. To begin, I will deal with some of the aspects of this bill and then I will speak further about what we are doing in higher education and education generally. I will also speak on the consequences of what we know to be the policy of the coalition with respect to education. After all, where is the $70 billion in savings the coalition are promising to come up with and where is that coming from? And how would that affect the capacity of Australia to have an appropriat­ely qualified workforce across the broad domain our economy requires?

This legislation incorporates amendments to implement the 2011-12 budget measures and also update maximum payments paid to provide for increases in enrolments in Commonwealth tertiary supported places and indexation. The bill has three main aspects. The first aspect of the bill provides for a reduction in the HECS-HELP discount applied to upfront student contribution pay­ments of $500 or more than 20 per cent to 10 per cent. The second aspect deals with an increase in funding for the overenrolment of Commonwealth supported places that occurred in 2011. The overenrolment in places is allowed for under the cap on funding for places over agreed targets. The cap on overenrolment was raised from five to 10 per cent in funding terms for 2010-11 as part of the introduction of the recommend­ations of the Bradley review to create a demand driven funding system for higher education from 2012.

From 2012, the cap on funding for undergraduate Commonwealth supported places has been removed for public universi­ties and other tertiary education providers, and that will have some implications for funding. Funding will be based on student demand, and that makes this one of the most important significant changes to higher education in this country for a very long time. I believe it will open up the system and allow more young people, mature people and older people the opportunity to go to university to get the VET training they want and that our society needs.

The final aspect of this bill deals with the Commonwealth supported places at overseas campuses. It gets rid of the ambiguity in the current legislation about its application to Australian citizens at overseas campuses of Australian higher education providers. It clarifies that Australian citizens will have access to HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP schemes only when they are enrolled on Australian campuses of an Australian provider.

The coalition really have nothing to be proud of when it comes to their record on higher education when they were in office. With respect to their performance, their funding for higher education was $8 billion in 2007. Their enrolments were about 400,000 university places around the country in 2008, 20 per cent fewer than will be the case in 2012. The funding of the Australian Labor government will increase from the measly $8 billion that the coalition put into the scheme to $13 billion this year. Enrolments this year will rise to over half a million places. That will give people the opportunity to achieve their full potential, exercise their skills, talents and ability, and go on to tertiary institutions. In my home state of Tasmania the University of Tasmania is now offering 13 per cent more places than in previous years. Many people in Tasmania are going to university or getting other post-secondary training for the first time. Some people have parents who did not have the opportunity to even finish high school—and the idea of going to university was fanciful under a coalition government. It was the opening up of the higher education system by the Whitlam government in the 1970s that gave so many people in this place and elsewhere the opportunity to go to university. This government is now massive­ly expanding its funding in this regard.

The coalition went to the last election proposing to gut education in this country to the tune of $2.8 billion but they were forced to reveal their true intentions. Their idea in the higher education sector was to put in protocols and arrangements that linked funding to the imposition of Work Choices. They said, 'We'll fund you and, if you don't put in place AWAs in the higher education sector, we'll effectively decrease your funding.' That was in their legislation, and we abolished it when we got into power because it was blatantly unfair. We want to have a tertiary sector that is demand driven by people aspiring to achieve their potential and go into higher education after completing high school.

The coalition want to have a tertiary scheme motivated by the imposition of Work Choices. This is not what this country needs. It is a class based attack on the university sector, a sector they have never comfortably supported, as shown through their speeches in this place on voluntary student unionism. As mentioned earlier, the coalition have failed to outline the cuts they would make and whether that would be to the new trades training centres—I have visited some of these new centres, and they are all keenly supported by the communities in which they are located—or to the Digital Education Revolution, of which the coalition have been critical. While the benefits of the NBN are recognised by some in the coalition, they cannot own up to that as their policy is to rip out the NBN if they were to get into government after the next election. And that would be a shame. The Tasmanian commu­nity would not accept that. As Senator Bushby, on the other side, would know, the NBN has been overwhelmingly supported in Tasmania, even by the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania, Mr Hodgman.

We have heard in here time and time again the attacks on the BER. There is not one school in Tasmania that would ever put up its hand and say: 'We didn't need this injection of funds. We didn't need these new classrooms, new library and new hall.' But I have not seen one Liberal senator go to a school in Tasmania and say, 'We believe this was a waste of money.' They may do it in this chamber, they may try and spruik it through the media, but they do not have the fortitude to front up to these school communities. I have visited so many of these schools. The students, the teaching staff, the administrative staff, the parents and the entire community can see the benefits that the injection of BER funding has made not only to their schools but to their community.

What about the National Partnership Agreement on Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities et cetera? None of that was referred to. There has been criticism of the Gillard government but nothing about what the coalition would do. Given the mumblings we are hearing, there is little doubt that they would go back to the education aspirations of the Howard government, which were to impose Work Choices and the like, and link that to funding once again.

The legislation we are debating here today is to implement a demand driven funding system for undergraduate university places and places in other public and private education facilities to meet the education and training needs of our community and our economy. But, as always, what the oppo­sition have demonstrated in this place is always about opposition. There is nothing about policy and how they are going to drag back and fill this $70 billion black hole.

The demand driven system for these places was passed by the House of Repre­sentatives on 14 September last year. We are providing $3.97 billion of additional funds over six years from 2010 for the demand driven funding system that the Bradley review recommended. There is an additional $1.2 billion in the 2011-12 budget. How much would the coalition put in if they were on the treasury bench? We know they will impose funding cuts, as they have said, and they will be looking for savings in this sector.

The government have taken the view that we need to increase funding in this sector. The 2011-12 budget increased the regional loading for universities by $109.9 million over four years. The student learning entitlement, which restricts students to seven years of Commonwealth support for univer­sity study, has been abolished since 1 January 2012. That change was to get rid of university red tape and make it easier for students to navigate the system. It will also make it clear that, if students want to go to university or get trade training, they will be able to get there. Students at Australian facilities will have better access to quality services when they go back to campus this year as a result of our student services amendment bill. This is all part of our package with respect to improving higher education across the country.

We in the Gillard Labor government see the benefits of providing educational oppor­tunities for our young people and for older and mature students. Those opposite oppose what we have done in this regard. They have posed and preened and uttered platitudes about their 'terrible days at university' in relation to our attempts to make sure students at university can get access to sporting and recreational activities, employ­ment advice, legal aid, child care, financial advice and food services. For the first time we are enshrining the promotion and protection of free intellectual inquiry in learning, research and teaching through amendments to the Higher Education Support Act. The coalition, in their complete and utter denial of reality with respect to good public policy, oppose these types of arrangements. They think that the promotion and protection of free intellectual inquiry in learning is not a worthy and noble thing to aspire to and protect. Universities and other eligible higher education providers in receipt of funding will now have a policy that actually upholds free intellectual inquiry. It is important that we also have established the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. This will basically amalgamate the work done by nine agencies into one central agency and provide national consistency and efficiency in registration and quality assurance.

This bill is important because it provides funding and it gets rid of any ambiguity. It also makes it plain that our demand driven system is something that we believe in. We are very keen to implement the Bradley reforms, because we believe that every single child, regardless of whether they are born in the Torres Strait or in Tasmania, in Palm Beach or in Perth, should be able to aspire to university or TAFE training and should have the opportunity to advance while experienc­ing financial security for themselves and their families. With that we, the government, believe that we distinguish ourselves from the opposition. If there is one pillar in the Labor Party that we strongly believe in, it is the belief in equality of opportunity. Postsecondary education placement, a demand driven system and legislation such as the bill we are debating today give us that opportunity.

I will also go into a little bit of detail regarding the more flexible principal purpose requirement to get on the record what the government has done. The amendment adds to the current principal purpose provisions to allow the minister the discretion to approve a body corporate as a higher education or VET provider where the principal purpose of that body may not be education—and/or resear­ch, in the case of higher education provid­ers—as long as its other purpose or purposes do not conflict with its principal purpose. There are certainly some industries and manufacturers that can readily demonstrate their ability to provide sound education and training. And the minister may suspend or revoke a body's approval as a higher educa­tion or VET provider if any of the body's other purposes conflict with its principal pur­pose or if the body no longer has education and/or research, in the case of higher education providers, as its principal purpose.

The loan may cover or partially cover the tuition costs of the VET course, a sensible addition. Students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds the minimum repayment level of $44,911 for 2011—once again, a very sensible provision.

This bill is important because it provides for opportunities for all Australians for our young people to aspire to go on to university. In the case of my home state of Tasmania, where we still need to increase the retention of students in higher education, this bill will assist those families and individuals. I com­mend the legislation to the Senate. I think it is important reform and it is part of a whole matrix of reform that this government is committed to, making sure that young people across the length and breadth of the country can get the chance to participate in our econ­omy and their community to the fullest ext­ent to which they aspire. I commend the bill.

(Quorum formed)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Other Measures) Bill 2011 [2012] provides an insight into the failure of government policy in the vocational education and training sector. It is a failure to promote a skilled workforce and a failure of the current legislation. The opening up of VET has exposed the underbelly of the market. It has exposed problems that need to be patched up. This is why this bill is needed.

Under the current act, approval to be a VET provider is given in perpetuity and to top off the gravy train. This bill is needed; we acknowledge that. It goes some way to tightening up compliance and establishing some accountability to private VET provid­ers. The expansion of competitive tendering and contestable funding for VET has brought with it a huge growth of private companies competing for domestic and lucrative full-fee-paying international students.

There are, as we know, unethical provid­ers entering the marketplace, taking advantage of the money to be made. And we know the risks are considerable in this sector. The implication is that it is in taking VET into the marketplace that we will see an expansion in the skills base in this country, but that is certainly not always the outcome. In Victoria the extension of contestable funding saw enrolment in courses for fitness instructors jump 1,000 per cent in just two years. Then there has been the introduction of income-contingent loans for students. That saw the abolition of concession fees for diplomas and the introduction of full fees for domestic students, with significant increases in costs of courses. So it seems an absurdity that, to attract more students to fill skills shortages and power Australia's future economic health, a framework is built that compels students to pay more for their training, forces them to borrow money to pay those increased costs and, in turn, allows further price rises by unscrupulous providers.

The Greens will support this bill. It puts some limited controls in place on a loose market regime that is causing such damage to vocational education. The Greens do welcome that the bill allows the Common­wealth to cancel or vary the payment of the student's debt to the provider via the VET FEE-HELP loan if the provider does not comply with any of the required guidelines or regulations, many of which relate to quality and accountability. It clarifies that a VET provider must provide statistical and other information to ensure compliance as requested by the minister. However, there are problems. The ability of the minister to approve a provider outside the required time frame is double edged because it allows inordinate delays in the process.

The government and the opposition have developed this brave new world of education and training where, despite the importance of VET as an investment in our future, govern­ments treat it as a cost to be borne by students and as a profit to be reaped by the corporate sector. But—to repeat again—the Greens will support the bill, as it provides some safeguards to a problematic sector.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators for their contributions and look forward to the passage of the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.